laurel mountain news
26 posts
12 users
8k+ views
imp
February 9, 2007
Member since 01/11/2007 🔗
235 posts
heard a bunch of new rumors of a pending sale of LM assets??
best bet seems to be a western area operator from Montanna.
Final decisions will be with the state dcnr who have the lease of the area and any new operator must make a new deal with them

imp
Laurel Hill Crazie - DCSki Supporter
February 10, 2007
Member since 08/16/2004 🔗
1,855 posts
Rumors fly around and around. Let's hope that a good one lands. Is the Montana group the right one?

As for the DCNR, yep, Laurel is a State Park and they are the keeper of the covenant. They won't approve if any group is not adequately capitalize and does not understand the restrictions on overnight lodging and full time summer use.
RobertW
February 10, 2007
Member since 10/14/2004 🔗
199 posts
Quote:

....and does not understand the restrictions on overnight lodging and full time summer use.




LMC, just curious. What restriction is there on full time summer use?
The Colonel - DCSki Supporter
February 10, 2007
Member since 03/5/2004 🔗
3,107 posts
Is it possible, if rumor true, that a group buying the "assets" could be buying them to move them elsewhere, as Camelback did eventually at the Rappahannock Ski Area in Virginia?
Hope not?!!!
The Colonel
DCSki Sponsor: DCSki
imp
February 10, 2007
Member since 01/11/2007 🔗
235 posts
the assets that the bank has for sale are basicly the lodge,above ground snowmaking, three cats and the quad chair. New owner of these can do what they want with them including tearing down and removing the lodge and chair.
the state wants the place to run so the restrictions placed by the actual landowner are somewhat negotabile but include no summer activities, it was given for winter sports only.
packaged with the ski area is Laurel mOuntain village a developement with a sordid history but some great potential.

imp
hockeydave
February 10, 2007
Member since 06/30/2004 🔗
772 posts
From my 2 conversations with Tyson Cook of Somerset Trust, the ski area assets and the land in Laurel Mountain Village are a package deal. I can't imagine someone would buy the ski area assets, move or sell them, and then decide to develop the real estate without the ski area. But what do I know.
SpringsRegular
February 10, 2007
Member since 10/14/2004 🔗
153 posts
there was a Montana group interested in HV last year. Wonder if it is the same group?
Heather
February 10, 2007
Member since 02/24/2005 🔗
170 posts
Hi gang. Haven't posted in a while, however this of course has peaked my interest. Just to let everyone know, summer activites were offered the first summer after LM opened for skiing. These activities included mountain biking, mountain boarding and concerts in the wildcat lounge. The Clarks and The Gathering Field played at the bottom of Tame Cat on an early August evening. I mention this last part only because the ownership used that last event as an excuse for not continuing summer "stuff", as they claimed they lost their A$$. However they never got the idea that to make money you need to spend money and choose to advertise on an extremely limited basis. I am fairly sure that the new owner would be urged to have some kind of summer activites as it would bring people to visit one PA most beautiful State Parks. Of course, this is just my rambling! I won't bore you any more!
imp
February 11, 2007
Member since 01/11/2007 🔗
235 posts
good chance as they have roots in HV if it is who it is reported to be
imp
Laurel Hill Crazie - DCSki Supporter
February 11, 2007
Member since 08/16/2004 🔗
1,855 posts
Quote:

Quote:

....and does not understand the restrictions on overnight lodging and full time summer use.




LMC, just curious. What restriction is there on full time
summer use?




What imp said:

Quote:

the state wants the place to run so the restrictions placed by the actual landowner are somewhat negotabile but include no summer activities, it was given for winter sports only.





The 1964 covenant gives the ski area to the DCNR for winter recreation only. No summer activities are stipulated but have occurred on a case by case basis. No overnight lodging developed within the ski area boundary.

Hey imp, what year is your ride?
JohnL
February 11, 2007
Member since 01/6/2000 🔗
3,516 posts
Quote:

Rumors fly around and around. Let's hope that a good one lands. Is the Montana group the right one?





Exactly. I don't know how many more of the proverbial nine lives Laurel Mountain has left. It's time to finally get it right.
imp
February 11, 2007
Member since 01/11/2007 🔗
235 posts
the imp was a 1963 LMC
imp
still runs in the woods
Mountain Masher
February 11, 2007
Member since 03/13/2004 🔗
541 posts
It seems odd to me that DCNR would place ANY restrictions on a resort operation at LM. Keep in mind that a significant portion of BK ski area is located on BK State Park land and PA DCNR has been VERY flexible in allowing the ski area concessionaire to conduct a wide range of development activities. In fact, I have never known of a single case where DCNR said "no" to a development/land-clearing idea at BK (even though objections/questions were often raised by various groups and entities including the National Park Service). So, I have to wonder why LM would be any different. Seriously, someone should ask DCNR why they are being stringent on various restrictions at LM when just the opposite has occurred at nearly BK. An interesting link: http://sports.webshots.com/photo/2445211540058355965pgIHYX
The Colonel - DCSki Supporter
February 11, 2007
Member since 03/5/2004 🔗
3,107 posts
MM,
We had hoped you were off the bash BK bandwagon; it has been some time since you posted a tirade on the subject.
Anyway, I think, from my reading this forum that the problem of full year round utilization of the LM site has something to do with the wishes of the person(s) who donated the land or access to the land to the state for a park. I could be wrong but I am sure other LM posters will set the record straight.
I also think that posing pictures of trail and other erosion that occurred 1-3 years ago is somewhat irresponsible unless more recent pictures show that nothing has been done to fix or mitigate the problem.
My two cents worth!
The Colonel
Mountain Masher
February 11, 2007
Member since 03/13/2004 🔗
541 posts
Colonel,

Note: The link is to a picture that was taken Nov. 16, 2006.
imp
February 11, 2007
Member since 01/11/2007 🔗
235 posts
DCNR does not own the land they have a 99 year lease agreement with the heirs to the actual owner. The terms of the lease called the covanant are what prohibit summer usage. .
The state park people at Linn run who are responsible for Laurel have done a great job within their limited powers to do actual physical things on the hill.
hopefully a new and consistant leasee will be able to have the covanant updated.

imp
Mountain Masher
February 11, 2007
Member since 03/13/2004 🔗
541 posts
Thanks for the info on lease aspect of LM. I had always presumed that DCNR actually owned the land in question. A long-term lease with a covenant complicates things a bit. In the case of BK, the US Air Force originally owned the land on the summit, which, today includes part of the ski slopes, and the land area where the snowmaking ponds and tubing park are located. When the Air Force left BK around 1960, the land was briefly held by the US Park Service, who deeded the land to PA for the purposes of preservation and recreation. Anyway, since PA actually owns some of the ski area land at BK (rather than leasing it) things are a lot simpler (in terms of how much leeway PA DCNR has) than the current situation at LM. As I've stated here before, I'm a huge fan of LM, so I'm really keeping my fingers crossed that a purchase deal will go through.
Laurel Hill Crazie - DCSki Supporter
February 11, 2007
Member since 08/16/2004 🔗
1,855 posts
Quote:

It seems odd to me that DCNR would place ANY restrictions on a resort operation at LM. Keep in mind that a significant portion of BK ski area is located on BK State Park land and PA DCNR has been VERY flexible in allowing the ski area concessionaire to conduct a wide range of development activities. In fact, I have never known of a single case where DCNR said "no" to a development/land-clearing idea at BK (even though objections/questions were often raised by various groups and entities including the National Park Service). So, I have to wonder why LM would be any different. Seriously, someone should ask DCNR why they are being stringent on various restrictions at LM when just the opposite has occurred at nearly BK. An interesting link: http://sports.webshots.com/photo/2445211540058355965pgIHYX




Hi MM. I share your concerns about the erosion at BK. I skied more than a few of the newly gladded runs before they were official, especially a link off of Edgeset into the top of the Ditch.

I remember the first year East Wall was open. Extrovert was open, and relatively unbumped. East Wall, with exposed rock ledge, was scruffed but packed. I skied East Wall thinking that this wasn't so much a glade but more a wide trail with a few trees. I skied Extrovert once. My most recent trips were after the hurricanes and heavy rains. The terrain at BK has become very fragile and erosion control has to be upgraded.

Laurel is a State Park but the land is granted with covenants from the original land owner, the Rolling Rock Farms, to the State for the purpose of winter sports. Logging is implicitly prohibited. Any terrain improvement should meet with strict guideline established, in part, by looking at what happened to BK. Besides, I doubt that that type of wide open glading will ever be done at Laurel.
Laurel Hill Crazie - DCSki Supporter
February 11, 2007
Member since 08/16/2004 🔗
1,855 posts
Opps, composed and posted before your previous reply.
GGNagy
February 12, 2007
Member since 01/5/2006 🔗
450 posts
Quote:

I skied East Wall thinking that this wasn't so much a glade but more a wide trail with a few trees.




so in other words, East wall meets the traditional definition of a glade "a clearing in a wooded area". In the olde dys of ski area design, a trail or slope would be cleared from edge to edge, while a glade or meadow would be relatively untouched... including leaving a stand of trees here and there. As time went on, skiiers modified the definition to actually refer to tree skiing.

In a sense, the name "Alpine Meadows Glade" was redundant to someone who would not know it referred to a forested area.
Laurel Hill Crazie - DCSki Supporter
February 12, 2007
Member since 08/16/2004 🔗
1,855 posts
Can't see the forest through the treess......sskiing.
Mountain Masher
February 13, 2007
Member since 03/13/2004 🔗
541 posts
As general rule, Gladed ski slopes are created by leaving the large economically valuable trees standing while clearing out the underbrush and some of the smaller trees located underneath. The large trees (that are left in place) keep the ground shaded, which prevents (or slows) brush and saplings from growing back. Also, the large trees provide a nice wind-block.
tomimcmillar
February 15, 2007
Member since 11/21/2004 🔗
129 posts
Sooooo, any beta on snow conditions at Laurel after the storm?

Did ya'll get any raincrust over that way?
Canaan got an ugly coating from what I've been reading....
LMV
February 15, 2007
Member since 06/1/2005 🔗
60 posts
we have a total of about 20+" of snow at Laurel Mountain Village. We did get a kind of a crust, more hard snow not ice, it never did rain. We had small ice chunks coming down for about an hour, this compacted the top most layer of snow. On top of the crust there is about 8-10" of powder.
tomimcmillar
February 15, 2007
Member since 11/21/2004 🔗
129 posts
that sounds pretty decent.....

any worthwhile trail maps of Laurel floating around the intraweb ether?

thanks.

edit: found map info thru link on front page....
LMV
February 15, 2007
Member since 06/1/2005 🔗
60 posts
You can get one from the Laurel Mountain page on DCSki.
DCSki Sponsor: DCSki

Ski and Tell

Speak truth to powder.

Join the conversation by logging in.

Don't have an account? Create one here.

0.15 seconds